Can We Terraform the Sahara to Stop Climate Change?
Be one of the first 73 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/realengineering/
New vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Credits:
Narrator/Director: Brian McManus
Co-Director: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Research: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
References:
[1] climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
[2] earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Wor...
[3] www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-...
[4] link.springer.com/article/10....
[5] www.bbc.com/news/science-envi...
[6] www.technologyreview.com/s/53...
[7] www.parliament.uk/documents/p...
[8] www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/d...
[9] Effects www.nature.com/articles/ncomm...
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
My Patreon Expense Report:
goo.gl/ZB7kvK
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, darth patron, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Hank Green, Tony Kuchta, Jason A. Diegmueller, Chris Plays Games, William Leu, Frejden Jarrett, Vincent Mooney, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Kedar Deshpande
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Inconvenient Truth 1 - Magnus Ringblom
Closer (SineRider Remix) [Silk Music]
Connection - Wayne Jones
Organic Foundation 1 - Niclas Gustavsson
Scripts Untold 2 - Magnus Ringblom
I wouldn't normally push Patreon, but with production quantity and quality going up, every bit helps. If you gain value from the content and want to give back in some way, consider supporting on Patreon: www.patreon.com/realengineering (edit: discussion point, should I remove comments of climate change deniers, or let my intelligent audience drown them out?)
Don't censor the idiots, please.
could you make a video over the carbon and environmental cost of making solar panels/windmills/batteries? (like the costs of getting the materials for it and when the amount of energy gained equals the cost of the steel, silicon, rare earth metals, lithium, etc that were mined to get it. Also the cost of disposing of all those things when they break)
+Real Engineering Censoring the illiterate morons only encourages them.
To even question if you should delete "deniers" comments just shows how fragile you and your position really are. Any intelligent person doesn't avoid debate, they encourage it.
I would destroy your Co2 climate change argument but I have already thoroughly done so in a different thread and don't feel like repeating.
How about not transforming rainforests into sahara v.2? Sounds even easier.
We need more forest and less desert that the only way, because the problem has been too big
Wouldn't really help how much carbon is trapped by a forest changes with surface area not with time. An existing forest does not trap carbon once it's grown.
@@nurhepi8755 it a joke
It's easier to NOT transform rainforests into sahara v.2? Eeerm..... have you MET capitalism????
@@DaDunge An existing forest does TOO trap carbon once it's grown, only not AS much. Also, why do you think long term astronauts always carry plants with them?
If they want to plant that many trees, a Monoculture would be a horrible idea, A minimum of 4 tree species would be needed
But i think one species of the genetically modified plant a can deal with all of that. And i think it will be to expensive to have more diversity
That with some organic waste (with all those rotten fruits that go wasted, I think we have what it takes)
nita kusuma. Monoculture are worse than deserts, especially for disease and biodiversity. Increasing the species count from one to six won't have much increase on cost, but the increase in sales of byproducts and reductions in side-effects is far better
Doesn't really work trees are only a temporary measure, the amount of carbon stored as coal dwarfs the amount stored in forests. We need to stop adding to the carbon cycle
Skyer I agree. Just look at the state managed forests in Ireland.
Seems amazing that turning a desert into a forest would have negative consequences overall, clearly shows how complex this systems are
It's also just one example of how climate change has unpredictable effects universally. It's why 'global warming' is a misleading term that confuses people who don't know the difference between climate and weather. The deserts of Americas west will migrate towards the east- the eastern seaboard will get warmer, proportionally more than the sea temperature increase. Middle Alaskan coastline will get warmer, drive sub-artic life north into arctic regions where THAT life is struggling to survive. Species will go extinct or interbreed to survive. We're already seeing polar bears mating with Kodiak bears. Europe will have hotter summers, start consuming more water than annual rainfall can replenish- so they'll need to get their water from somewhere else, which shifts global power to those countries because maybe the place with the most fresh water for sale doesn't happen to be a current powerhouse. My prediction is that within the next decade we'll begin slicing off pieces of glacier and floating them to huge manmade reservoirs to melt and be used for fresh water- to both attempt to negate drought AND the freshwater flowing into the oceans. Better in our corn than in the ocean, right?
which system
Based on the models we have made with all the ignorance of the biology and oriented on the marketing of co2 this is no surprise.
Well, the Sahara already does have green periods, as evidenced in previous maps from past time periods and also accounts in many writing several thousands of years ago. This, and the fact a desert wouldn't have fossils from creatures found in water, specifically fossils of both water types, if not for it both having streams and lakes from inland sources, at some time. It's is viable to return an area to that.
It needs to be done in stages: bind clay to the sand, then create hardy grass and shrub land. Only then plant trees. But to be honest , using marine phytoplankton would be a lot faster.
They'd have to be careful with the clay addition. Let it go dry and you have a crude cement, almost!
i´d say use a diverse aproach - increasing phyto plankton, kelp and the like, but also help already existing shrub+grasslands to mature into forrests, simply by preventing uncontrolled grazing for a few years. then, spread those hardy grasses at the boarders of the sandy part of the desert, to let their roots stabilize it.....realistically, we can´t (and don´t need to) turn the entire desert green, just add a forrest here and there and most of all: stop it from growing+spreading!
Sounds easier than terraforming Mars as our planet B.
Hey musk. You need to shut someone up. Believe me Mars is better
Mars is mostly there just for fun and glory
Planet 🅱
they want to terraform Mars cuz they gave up on earth
Human need to dream, it's our main drive to do things. Watching someone trying to do something, make you want to do impossible thing also. If only Musk can stop lying about Tesla productions.... people will start to understand something isn't right after some time.
Eucalyptus trees? They are some of the biggest water sucking trees known in the forestry industry. Plus the Eucalyptus tree (aka gum-tree) is highly flammable, hence the incredibly vast and uncontrollable forest fires that often occur in Australia. These trees, while converting Carbon into Oxygen also release a highly flammable oily gas, which hangs in the air around the tree tops and when ignited, burns like petrol! This is also why a Eucalyptus forest fire tends to spread rather quickly, especially at the top of the trees, rather than at the bottom. I am not convinced Eucalyptus is the best option for such a solution. If your Sahara Eucalyptus Forest, catches fire, you'll be contributing to global Warming like no-one has ever contributed before! Another problem with Eucalyptus trees, as mentioned, is their enormous thirst for water. I have seen this with my own eyes here in South Africa where we have a pretty large Forestry industry. Mountainous areas which once had plenty of fresh water springs, have become dry after Eucalyptus Forest have been established on them. Other areas that I have become known to be dry as a kid, suddenly produce sprawling water springs as soon as the Eucalyptus Forests there are being chopped down again. Sadly, only to cause erosion, since the natural flora has been destroyed and cannot be re-established because the Eucalyptus trees have turned the ground acidic. Eucalyptus can be a real problem when taken out of it's natural environment and planted elsewhere. Sure the tree comes from Australia and thus you can use it in the Australian Outback if you want, just be careful when taking it elsewhere. Eucalyptus can have terrible side effects for the ground it stands on and it is probably the most flammable tree we know! For all you know, the Outback could once have been full of Eucalyptus trees a few thousand years ago, only to turn it into a desert after a huge fire. And now nothing else will grow in it's place due to high acid levels in the ground. Since you are the one talking about facts, perhaps you wanna check ALL your facts first, before making such a video, suggesting the possibility of planting Eucalyptus trees in deserts everywhere. I really cannot see how it can be the best tree (or plant) for the job. I am pretty sure there are other plants better suited and even better adapted for this job. Perhaps the Namib Desert can inspire you? It is quite an incredible place and I believe, it is also the oldest desert in the world?
Is it eucalyptus drain the water? Or is it only eucalyptus that can survive after the soil has been drained of water? Because eucalyptus is one of plants that survive in dry climate, meaning that they adapted to live on little amount of water. A quote from www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/water/why-eucalyptus--60275 "The water use of a Eucalyptus plantation has been found to be 785 litres/kg of total biomass, which is one of the lowest if compared with tree species such as Acacia (1,323 litres/kg), Dalbergia (1,484 litres/kg) and agricultural crops such as paddy rice (2,000 litres/kg) and cotton (3,200 litres/kg)." Instead of blaming eucalyptus for the missing water spring, you should be glad there are still trees, eucalyptus tree. Something else is draining the water springs. Not eucalyptus.
@@gorilladisco9108 Also the reason Australia have firestorm.
@@yulusleonard985 California does not have eucalyptus forest and they also have firestorms. Maybe the blame should be directed to overvigilant forest rangers.
@@gorilladisco9108 nope. its a well known fact that California has not manage their forrests properly whch actually have lead to increases in forrest fires and severity.
@@gorilladisco9108 Australian firestorm is on another level. If you think Californian forest fire already bad enough try imagine 10x of that. Their trees will self immolate and you can even witness fire tornado/cyclone.
I could be doing homework and finals but I feel like I learn more from these videos then from school. Keep up the good work.
Same
You don’t, these are entertainment videos which can help you learn and can be good for supplementation but no one’s graduating from KZhead university and becoming a doctor/engineer/architect/scientist/researcher you get my point. Just study for your finals this year man, when have you ever heard someone say “dang I shouldn’t have studied for finals” lol.
Actually if you’re curious about the very concrete reason you don’t learn as much from KZhead videos it’s because you have to do the work yourself to really learn. Just watching someone else do the work and you’ll forget in a few months 90% of the time
The Australian outback, mainly as a consequence of La Nina weather patterns, periodically floods leading to a temporary but measurable reduction in global sea levels and downward pressure on global CO2 due to vegetation growth. To have a measurable global impact it is likely an additional 4000 Gigaltrs per year would-be required in the Australian outback.
is it just me or did he say that the eukalyptus tree is the habitat for these cute little shits
The subtitles confirm it xD
i was looking for this comment hahaha
he said it with such little hesitation
Yeah he did
Yeah I was going to come to that
Find it so funny he calls koalas "These cute little shits."
That made me laugh so hard!😂
I had to roll back and double check i heard it right :D
i thought i was the only person who heard it :D
They're actually called "Drop-Bears" and they're ferocious.
koalas are useless though, like panda. there are better animals to rehab on those new forests that are critically endangered and have significant purpose in ecosystems.
The Sahara was once green, I watched a interesting documentary that stated the Sahara became a desert due to climate change thousands of years ago. However, it didn't turn into a desert due to a hotter climate but was due to a cooling climate in the area. This caused the monsoons to stop it's yearly rains and created the Sahara desert.
You had me at "cute little shits"... #BRILLIANT
Ironically, the Sahara was green with lakes and rivers the last time the Earth's temperature rose.
Also there was a sea near Mauritania. Some things even lead that Atlantis was on the eye of Sahara.
That's because rain falls equally on all earth's surface, also the Sahara might go back to green.
@@hiitsme4901 "rain falls equally on all earth's surface". Not even close. Go look up the definition of "Desert".
@@hiitsme4901 When Greenland is going to be green again?
1,100 years ago the Sahara was green with lakes and rivers ? Not doubting you, just saying I never heard about it before.
"These cute little shits" This went from professional to funny and back to professional in a second. That was awesome.
Vulgar, not funny
@@monitorcomputersystemsltd2375 I found it hilarious
Yeah nah, that was pretty funny
@@monitorcomputersystemsltd2375 monitor your sense of humor you boring mud flap.
I thought I missheard. 😅
You can also look at wood char sequestration. You grow trees, char the outside and bury them. It keeps them from breaking down for a long time and takes carbon out of the cycle. You could probably do this with all of the Christmas trees sold each year.
Or burn them instead of fossile coal.
@@Hakkeholt the point is to sequester carbon underground back where we found it. By charring the wood it petrifies it and keeps it from breaking down into methane.
@@gaussmanv2 Yes, you can make "terra preta", I've seen a few documentaries about it, and it's an interesting way of making poor soil fertile with it, I also used it in my vegetables garden, and it is also used as animal feed additive, the pro is that it stays in the soil for hundreds of years like the black earth they found in Amazon and Germany.
@@gaussmanv2 The point with carbonisation is that you heat the material without oxygen, Amazon farmers just set the woods on fire and only thing that's left is few stumbs and ash, but ash is not carbon, the little carbon that does stay is way too less and with heavy rainfall it will flood to a river and end up in the ocean.
This seems like a complex enough problem that I find it highly dubious all factors have been considered. There would almost certainly be unintended consequences that have not yet been predicted.
Kind of seems to me they didn't look at this thoroughly. For all we know this may start a zombie apocalypse.
@@JB-yb4wn how it could a devastating effect is beyond my thinking especially if this terraforming was done slowly. We dont need to do this overnight or rapidly as suggested either. creating fresh water from sea water would restore some much needed moisture in the air that scrubs carbon from the atmosphere and delivers it to the ground or ocean where its consumed by plants. Our fresh water consumption is far outpacing our natural precipitation cycle of fresh water. That is why the deserts continue to dry and grow and more hurricanes occur as the atmosphere desperately tries to cool by pulling moisture from the ocean.....do you notice that these deserts are also in areas where oil recovery has sucked up all available surface water to shoot into the ground and recover oil. The only devastating effect slowly terraforming the desrt would be to oil and gas industries pockets as less people would need the oil. Then again youd think they would want a steady flow of water to help recover oil so who knows
@@catskillmountainadventures7439 Very, very good points. I think Franklin once said that "when the well's dry, we know the worth of water" Suffice it to say, the real problem is greed.
I support this project, i hate sand it's coarse and rough and it gets everywhere....
Not because it would save the planet, but because fuck sand.
I got your reference.
@@TheAquaBallistic ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+Father Rhyme You don't seem to get it, did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise?
@@BoneziusPilatuzI thought not. Its not a story the jedi would tell you
It would be a bad idea to do this with only a single species of tree.
Not only that but eucalyptus forests are prone to bushfires, their leaves being oil filled and flammable, their life cycle is fire adapted. The Eucalyptus grandis or Flooded Gum is a tree that requires significant rainfall and is relatively drought intolerant. They probably mean the hybrid of Grandis and Camaldulensis that is grown in Southern and Eastern Africa. Melia Volkensii would be a better choice because it is an African native and has the added advantage of being a nitrogen fixing plant.
Yeh, let's plant a whole forest of highly flammable trees that are known to explode in hot temperatures
Mono cultures are never a good idea its like hedging your bets in a casino betting everything on one number. No credible climate, botany or geologist expert would agree to sturcture a programm in which only one kind of tree would be used
Yeah, and it would result in the decreased habitat for desert species - especially Australia's endangered animals.
Also dont forget the insanely high number of corroding unexploded antivehicle mines all over the Sahara
Great video, but I have some questions: Do we specifically need trees to capture carbon? There are other plants that can capture more carbon with less water, like bamboo and camelina. There are also plants that require large amounts of water, but said water doesn't need to be freshwater, like algae and seaweed, which can thrive in wastewater or saltwater. There's other technologies that may be more profitable, practical or simpler than solar panels or wind turbines. There's the trompe, which can make compressed air using just water and with no moving parts. (Besides the air pressure valves) Then there's a type of engine invented by a Spanish man in the late 1860's-early 1870's which could boil water into steam using a combination of zinc (for some reason), manganese dioxide (as a catalyst) and potassium chlorate (the main fuel, the same material used for percussion caps). The byproducts, from what I understand, are oxygen and potassium chloride (a type of salt which can be converted back into potassium chlorate, and is the major feedstock for potassium chlorate in the first place). I'm not saying that carbon capture is the golden nugget, nor am I denying your research. I'm simply suggesting that the above mentioned technologies may be worth researching.
Trees and any plant do photosynthesis. This process requires our Co2 to then offgas in the final process as oxygen.
I born in the African Sahara and I've been living there all my life(30yo now) I'm 100% with the idea of afforestation the Sahara. I've graduated from different Agriculture schools, institutions, and centers I have 3 diplomats right now, All of them were about how to boost agriculture activities and afforestation for a better diversity ecosystem and reducing climate change... But the most and the biggest problem here is the Fundings! who will fund and sponsor that big project cuz NO ONE will invest there with his own money! It's a large scale investment; we're talking about Billions of dollars here. I and my colleagues have been working on that idea but we stopped cuz we had no finding acquisitions and the locals here though we are a bunch of lunatics dreamers. But I'm still believing in the idea every single day and as soon as I get the financial support I'll start right away. Thanks for the video @Real Engineering
Meanwhile, the international community is fairly easygoing with the Amazonian basin being cut down. Weird.
Yeah... It's called the Earths lungs.
syntropic farming < check out > life in Syntropy kzhead.info/sun/mreJfrata4yGqX0/bejne.html
And giving certain industrial nations a pass on carbon emissions.
What would you do ? Invade Brazil ?
Me AndMeToo at some point destruction of the environment will be seen as a shared existential threat. And at that time, respect for local sovereignty will be of little concern. I would suggest that the Amazonian basin qualifies as one of those critical zones needing broad international protection. The question becomes whether that realization will come in time to stop the cascading events that will if not stopped lead to the death of billions of people. So, yes, by hook or crook.
A mono-culture of eucalyptus? That would be horrid for the ecological diversity.
What do you mean it worked out great to create a burning inferno in the Californian Chaparral.
And eucalyptus is super flammable. It could be a disaster once a fire starts.
Not to mention displacing the people who actually do live there.
fordville.
I think it is for terraforming.
I'd recommend everyone to watch "Kiss the ground" on Netflix. It's a documentary that came out 2 days ago which is about Climate change and how land use can impact it. It's very encouraging! One of the best documentaries I've ever watched!
I also encourage watching "Extreme Lands"
@@milokaw4193 where can I watch that?
Fill the Richat structure up with forest. There is usually some water in it, and it has a large aquifer under it. The moisture it produces will land on the plateau above it, run down and settle into the dry lakebed to the north, eventually starting off a chain reaction and restart the Tamarasset branch.
can we stop terraforming the good land into desert first ?
The irony is that climate change will create a natural band of trees within the sahara. The problem is, that timber value and demand is set to skyrocket, so it will likely be harvested for profit and unsustainable.
This is easy. 1.use a well to purify sea-water 2. Use sunlight to evaporate water
@@momentarymasters9726 So... basically make a profit rehabilitating the climate? Cool.
What are you doing about it?
@@momentarymasters9726 why is timber's value set to skyrocket?
World: We need to solve OUR Carbon emissions problem *Sees Cost* You got this, right Africa?
Is any notable person actually a proponent of that attitude?
@tiny tim -- That point is certainly worth considering, if it's true. Do you have a source for that claim?
@tiny tim -- Thanks. I'll take a look at it.
@Klaudia haha the plans already existed before Qathafi's coup detat. And Qathafi's attempts all failed due to his idiotic managing.
@@mvmlego1212 Plot twist, it's actually bullshit. The slash and burn farming method isn't practiced in Africa like it is in South America.
Did your CO2 figures for solar panels take into account the amount of fossil fuels required to make them?
Could you explain your statement more
@@mr16325 He’s talking about how in the manufacturing process of solar panels, or any manufactured products for that matter, produce lots of carbon. Don’t even get me started on mining the materials too
What about diversifying and using other faster growing plants like hemp, which could provide a multitude if useful products?
😂😂😂
3:23 did you just say cute little shits?
I believe so... (turned on the captions, and it seems to verify what you had heard)
Look up t hose animals and you will understand why
I was wondering that too.
🤣 had to do a double take! So out of character to hear little shits on this channel!
I heard that too Kkkkkkk
This idea of afforestation never crossed my mind, it actually blew it. I am amazed thanks for the videos and keep up the great work.
Algae farms would be better, We could make fuel out of it too When i say farm im thinking enormous..... Algae and water pumped through clear pipes, while air is pumped through that
Algae farms may reduce emissions by providing more efficient production of certain things, but they don't act as a carbon sink like forests do.
Read about the Green Belt which is to stop the growth of Sahara Desert. It is a belt of trees starting from from east to west of Africa 10km thick belt of trees funded by the UN.
China is afforesting the Gobi Desert and a majority of the equatorial countries in Africa have also been doing this for years and have been successful.
" Algae farms may reduce emissions by providing more efficient production of certain things, but they don't act as a carbon sink like forests do." Wood itself is a temporary carbon sink Ive heard mass scale diamond manufacturing could work, but we would need fusion The energy then would simply be better invested continually scrubbing the atmosphere with the limitless energy of ....hydrogen fusion
Always enjoy your videos. As a side project, agroforestry also has proven net gains for crop, livestock and carbon capture per acre. I would love to see even a cursory review of yours on research of the prescribed systems. On the data presented for this video, a few counterpoints. - pumping large amounts of water over areas which are largely in aquifer recharge zones would look costly at first but would eventually start a recharge cycle on their own, limiting net loss. After tree maturation cycle, supplemental water allowances can be reduced greatly; the cost curve would need to be adjusted - you covered this second point somewhat, but it is an important part of the cost analysis, - given large enough areas, the plant transpiration process can trigger higher-then-current rain cycles. Simply a humidity/air-weight problem. Additionally, the higher elevations of cloud masses are of lighter color and will indeed reflect heat-light back into the atmosphere. - albedo effect can perhaps be thrown out while, currently, reflected heat-light from large reflective regions cannot easily escape the atmosphere anyway. If we achieve a point where the albedo effect works against us, we would have already reversed a major part of the current issues. This concept exemplifies where the myopic science lens fails. But yes! - reduction of unneeded carbon emission practices must also occur. Multiple actions are needed.
1:45min mark- we've leveled out? As in were not increasing the use anymore? That's great to hear!! Now we stay the course and well get back to normal levels. That puts my mind at ease
Great Idea.... while deforesting the Amazon Rainforest.. we are going to terraform the Sahara...
5000 years ago the sahara was green.
Enrique exactly
Anyway, the Amazon is already being deforested to grow illegal coca.
Don't worry, once re-forested, we'll quickly deforest it again as governments realise its significant economic value as a commodity on the industrial markets.
Yeah!! that's exactly the point with this utopic idea.
3:23 gotta say, that caught me off guard
I LOL'ed
Me too man, I had to check it like 3 times
Is this the first time RealEngineering swore in a video?
Fucking loved it.
I'm from Australia, Eucalyptus is a fire weed. We have massive bush fires from them each year. They drop bark and dry leaves all year round the fires are huge because in the leaves is a highly flammable oil which burns like petrol. We get this from less than 10% coverage of the landmass! California has this problem too as returning soldiers took the trees back in the 1940s. Pick another tree...
Building large patches such as a few KM² of such forests and then studying their effects might be more helpful and this is the need of the hour.
Maybe I wasn't listening well enough but I didn't hear any reference to soil quality and lack of nutrients
Check out "one strange rock" on Netflix. It's a documentary about our earth. In the first episode it explains that the dust storms from Africa travel across the Atlantic and is what gives the Amazon rain forest all of it's rich soil. The soil in the Sahara should be extremely rich. However, that being said, I would rather someone develop a genetically modified photosynthetic plankton or algae that could poop out wood pellets or something that would sink to the bottom of the ocean. Seems way easier to implement if it could be done.
@@grantgilson1258 Sand being the heavier particles stay behind and the smaller particles like clay will blow away. The structure of soil is important in growing plants and having mainly sand is not good because it drains very quickly. You can add organic matter that will help but it is only temporary and not a solution to a better composition/structure of soil for growing plants. the same is true with soils that composed mainly of clay particles.
@@grantgilson1258 I have heard the the Amazons Soil is really cheap! That's why if local farmers burn down the rainforest to use the land ?agriculturily? they have to repeat the process after some years!
Look at what China has done in their expanding northern desert areas, look at what Israel has done! All in desert sand. I live in an area in Australia in a coastal area where there is just beach sand and plants grow like crazy! I know it is not logical, but it happens.
@@bobmarshall3700 Nothing is impossible with sand you just need to stop the water draining through so quickly. You can do that by bringing in organic matter which well help hold the water and give nutrients but this will generally only be short term. You could use use water crystals to hold the water or by bringing in new top soil with more clay and silt in it. And of course there are plants that are more adapted to drought conditions - succulents/cactus/ grey leaved foliage etc
why dont just stop deforesting Rainforests?
easier said than done. if people stop deforesting, we either stop cutting trees down or we plant trees after. both options are more expensive and there's little incentive.
scsi95 well there’s an idea. Unfortunately, the value of doing something good is measured by the money you could make doing it.
maybe because those rain-forests are the sovereign land of the nations which they exist and it is up to those nations to decide how to utilize their natural resource, not you. unless you are prepared to use war.
J. B. Hide the tanks
There is already evidence that the slight increase in CO2 is causing rain forests to grow faster. (Since it's plant food that makes sense. No CO2 = NO LIFE ON EARTH.)
Wow nice video 👏 Will definitely do that course. Amazing thanks 😊
So my dad and I had an idea of running an underground canal from the ocean to create as I like to call an "oasis headquarters" that'll act as the source of water to reinvigorate the Sahara, somewhere along the line have a desalination facility to turn the water pumping into that oasis zone to be fresh water. The largest cost comes in the construction but after it's built it'll be assumably easy to maintain
To expensive and a logistical nightmare
i think we need to replant the amazon first
... and pay for the unrealized Brazilian profits.
Actually, the first step is to stop the intentional destruction of the Amazon rain forest. We need to put pressure on Brazil's president Bolsinaro to stop it instead of encouraging it. BTW the reason it is being burned is for animal agriculture. Grazing and soy production mostly to feed the animals (cattle) to slaughter weight. Cattle produce a lot of methane which is more than 20 times worse for climate change than C02. In fact, animal agriculture contributes more to climate change than all transportation combined. That was the conclusion of the expert panel of the UN. That's why they urged mankind to switch to a plant based diet ASAP to avoid irreversible climate change.
@@someguy2135 All this climate discussion is a big hoax. But if you want Brazil to stop using the amazonian resources in benefit of it's own population, then you should be paying for the profits they are giving up. The world should be pouring money to pay for this preservation. Bear in mind that most of the Brazilian population is poor, in part because they don't use the amazon potential. If you wish to preserve the rain-forest, you should stop preserving the population's poverty.
@@GregoXWK4225 I would be in favor of imposing a carbon tax on everyone to pay developing countries for doing their part. However, a carbon tax should also include a provision to encourage a plant based diet. I don't know what the details would be, but currently here in the USA, our government is subsidizing animal agriculture. That needs to end as a first step. I will be voting for Joe Biden. I am sure he will reinstate our participation in the Paris Accord for climate change. Not enough, but it is a start. Trump's policies have crippled the Environmental Protection Agency.
@@GregoXWK4225 This "big hoax" is a fact recognized by the vast majority of scientists in that field. "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists - 97 percent - agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change" climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Don't eucalyptus trees tend to self combust all the time?
Lol yeah, that would be the biggest wildfire ever
Yup. Eucalyptus is a large family of trees and shrubs of about 700 species, may of which are extremely flammable. Overall certain species would be a good choice in Australia where most are native to however not so much for the Sahara. Various Oak species native to North Africa would be a better choice for the Sahara along with native acacia trees and less flammable species. They also have oils in the leaves that create a waterproof layer on the grounds surface that without the species of rodent and marsupials native to Australia that dig the soil would build up causing water to run off the grounds surface and massive fires to destroy everything.
Yep seen one do it not far away split in two the noise was amazing ...watching a bushfire from about 100mtr away just outside of sydney..
Yep, like clockwork.
Thats what I was about to say eucalyptus is a bad choice for a gigantic Forrest made of the same tree
I'm not a denier. I've noticed a change in climate in my lifetime of 70 years. I remember when I was a kid, winters were colder. We had more snow and ice. I think there are things we can do but we need to be careful. Worst thing would be to rush acting on fear and panic. Cutting carbon emissions is certainly a good idea. Some things I've read seem to indicate wind and solar are not quite as green as we would think. One thing that might help reduce emissions might be found in seaweed for plastics. Another in hemp and bamboo. Fast growing plants with many uses could replace much wood. Retention of forests and good management of them. Seems it would be wise to keep some of the desert areas. Great videos you make.
@Focused Studying Yes, it is worth doing what we know how to do. I think we will get better as technologies move forward. I do think moving forward too fast can cause economic harm and maybe other harm. We humans are very intelligent but we are prone to making mistakes. We're getting better so there's hope.
What did the Amazon tress and Atlantic plankton to for nutrients during the saharan wet periods?
Me: What happened to the Sahara desert? Time traveler: You mean Sahara forest? Me: *Surprised Shaq face*
The Sahara used to have forests, grasslands, lakes, and a whole lot of people. www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
UteChewb OMG STOP RUINING JOKES SMH
Sahara means 'great desert', so 'Sahara forest' means 'great desert forest'. Yes I am fun at parties, despite never going to them.
The location where the Sahara desert is now was an ocean millions of years ago. The ocean then turned into a forest and later into a desert all because of natural climate change when there were no or very few humans and no industrial CO2 to cause the changes. Man made global warming is a scam.
@@simon6071 Riiiight, a "scam" first hypothesized in the 19th century, with thousands upon thousands of conspirators, that *no one* has been able to expose. No, emails of scientists arguing over methodology or the media and non scientists making incorrect claims don't count. Are you flat earthers ever going to attempt a refutation, or are you just going to keep shouting incoherently about the straw men that, more often than not, *you* made?
I think we can take smaller and faster steps by filling up lakes and inland water bodies that had dried up over the past two decades, a very good example is the Aral Sea. Refilling then with water, reintroducing ecosystems will help bring back the busing day’s of the past to their shores and microclimates will be restored.
You do get why the Aral Sea is drying up? The Soviet irrigation project took too much water out of the river feeding it. The irrigation project that is feeding thousands if not millions of people in that overall desert region? Bringing back the Aral Sea is in this context just a feel good hippy exercise, it will have a bad effect on global warming since it would end those farmlands that suck up C02 and make a giant water surface, water has low albedo.
1503nemanja what do you reckon would work? I wonder if we do the Sahara project should we stop deforesting elsewhere as well or will this be enough to offset our continuation of deforesting places like the amazon
As this vid shows even totally greening the Sahara would not do too much against Global Warming. As to how to stop it there are two general approaches. 1) Take the CO2 out of the air, either by using trees like this project or by making factories that suck CO2 out of the air and sequester it underground, this is energy intensive and gives no immediate economic value so you can see why we are not using this arguably best measure. 2) You don't take CO2 out but you find other ways to reduce heating, like seeding clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight (clouds having a very high albedo). Introducing other chemicals into the air intentionally to act as a mirror layer and reduce incoming sunlight. Or make a sunshade, an orbiting gigantic mirror which would reflect sunlight. It sounds impossible and high tech and yes it isn't easy but it isn't nearly as hard as you might think because we can make the mirror smaller by putting it closer to the sun and it can be super thin and still do the job. Estimates show it would take 1000tons into space to achieve this, expensive but doable now. Note that going by option 2 that still leaves the problems (like ocean acidification) and benefits (more plant growth) of CO2 as it remains in the air.
You also have to take into account that the lake dried up for a reason, you can't just fill it back up and expect it not to dry up again. Take away the underlying cause and then fill them up would be a better idea I guess.
If you think the Soviet Era Aral Sea project was good idea you must love vacationing at Chernobyl. The irrigation project became a toxic waste land for everyone in the area including the farmers.
A: putting solar panels in the Sahara desert is bad because shifting sand dunes would only bury them over time. B: stopping the shifting dunes (drying land) with gravel, dead tree stumps, and clay soils; would be more beneficial at moisture retention than planting trees. C: planting trees that require a lot of water is too expensive. So growing desert shrubs, cactus, and grasses is more economical sound. D: jungle trees in the Amazon get most of their nutrients from moss growing on the branches. So planting more types of bark moss and eliminating parasitic plants would help that jungle. E: spreading animal manure over the pen ocean from factory farms is more beneficial than desert dust. F: if we allow "hot deserts$ to remain uncovered that will keep global temperatures rising. Eventually, the Sahara would erode so much it would turn into marshland/bogland.
I'm an Englishman living in Aus. And whilst I think this idea is great I'm not sure many Australia's would buy in to it. But back in Britain I think there are things that can be done. One stop building on green space and convert old factories, warehouses and the dying high street in to housing. Encourage people to get milk from the milk man again, that'll but more electric cars on the road and get people using glass over plastic. The government should bring in a system where all your glass, plastic bottles and cans can be recycled at a center where when you bring them in you get 10p an item. That would encourage people to litter less and recycle more. It work very well here in Oz. All cities cites should have cladding on the buildings that allows greenery to grow, this will reduce CO2 in the city and reduce noise. All busses should be like the ones in Southampton where they collect dirty air as they drive and put out clean air after. There are other things to, like encourage people to grow their own food, small veg patch, potato bin, a fruit tree maybe a couple of chickens or ducks. Not all needs to be grown, people can choose. Government should copy Germany and put solar panels on every social housing building and reintroduce the insensitive for solar on housing. Wind farms off the coast, like the plan in Bournemouth. This will also bring sea life back to an area because of the rocks used at the base of the turbine. See Felixstowe for evidence. Loads can be done.
Pour liquid nitrogen on the ice caps. Done, where is my Nobel prize?
Genius
Except to cool nitrogen into a liquid you draw the heat out of it not create cold and the process of removing heat from something produces heat for various reasons such as friction. You end up with more heat than you started with
the heat would dissipate with in a few seconds
dissipate back onto the planet you tried to cool.
Shaz _ in to space
Video starts at 02:00 02:23 Let’s grow eucalyptus trees in the Sahara, 06:00 we can use desalination to water the trees, 07:00 solar power to run the desalination plants, 08:00 and carbon taxes can pay for everything! 08:39 But will it actually stop climate change? 10:30 Maybe, but greening the Sahara will screw the world’s ecosystem, 11:20 so we should just use more renewable energy instead, 11:35 ...and it just so happens that we have an online course!
Thanks a lot.
Thank you
Video starts at 0:00
You do that to every video?
Wattle trees they grow in gravel with very little water.
Glad to see some though put into a solution, weather it is feasible or not we need to explore these and other ideas, and stop putting our heads in the ground and thinking it will just go away. We need to start thinking of our future generations.
And this experiment was set back because of the supremely fire-vulnerable eucalyptus was used, without understanding the other factors needed to build soil carbon, crucial in helping soils sequester water, and reduce wasteful flooding...
Job interview: Interviewer: It says here you’re a lumberjack. Are you any good? Applicant: Well, you know the Sahara forest? Interviewer: Do you mean the Sahara Desert? Applicant: Is that what they’re calling it now?
That was so bad
So bad that it’s hilarious
@Larry TRUELOVE Applicant obviously lied on the application form when he put down his age, The Sahara forest did exist some millions (at least) of years ago.
I heard Urkel tell that joke 25 years ago
Dre Day I’m sure you did. It’s still funny in my opinion.
We could just *BLESS THE RAINS DOWN IN AFRICA*
Gonna take some time to do the things we never had
we could totolly do that!
I know we must do what's right . As sure as kilimanjaro rises Like Olympus above the Serengeti
@@o0o-jd-o0o95 We seek to cure what's deep inside . Frightened of this thing that we've become.
@John Martinez YOu miseed a "duuun"
I don‘t understand: if the Amazon rainforest needs the Sahara‘s dust, then what did it look like thousands of years ago when the Sahara was green?
Australian bush fires say . NO YOU DONT C--T !….. HOLD MY F---ING BEER !.
I'm glad you brought up the fact that the nutrient rich dust from the Sahara would no longer be blown to the Amazon and the Atlantic. This alone is enough to negate the project in my opinion. Not even bringing into account all the other negatives like the albedo and the energy costs to water and plant the desert, we would be planting one forest and possibly killing another.
It also provides much of the nutrients for algae which is more important to our oxygen supply than any forest
The World once lived with a forest where the Sahara now is - and it was cooler.
@@Derek_Gunn And it is expected to afforestate naturally in some 15000 years. It works on a 40000 year cycle along with changes in earths orbit.
@@Erowens98 I'm kinda aware of this but would like to know more... Do you have any reference links for what you commented?
@@Erowens98 That might well be true if the Earth did not have people changing the atmosphere's chemistry so dramatically.
Side note: planting one species of tree across half a continent sounds like a recipe for cultivating any disease suited to killing said trees. That could be rectified by using a diverse range of flora which would eventually create something not unlike the amazon where you can go a whole km without seeing the same species of tree. It doesn’t solve the problem of forests absorbing too much energy from the sun, but it would provide more than just a massive increase in o2 worldwide. It would provide all kinds of knew information about life, and could be the gateway to the discovery of an incalculable number of pharmaceuticals we could make great use of. Still, there’s probably a hundred better things to focus on rn - what with climate change being the most important
the forests absorb energy from the sun, but that energy is converted into chemical bonds rather than thermal energy
Non-Australians seem oblivious to the fact that eucalypts burn with the fury of a hundred suns. Theres a reason that 200 000 square kilometres of bushland and 1 billion animals were burned at the start of the year. Make them into the biggest monoculture in the world and eventually a huge chunk of it will torch itself.
I like your thought process! watch this video to get to know about an applicable way to transform deserts: kzhead.info/sun/qdSNeM1vhmhso4E/bejne.html
@@philipgeorge3472 Completely agreed. In several forests in Latin America vast swathes of Australian eucalyptus trees were introduced for economic use in the previous century. It has been an ABSOLUTE DISASTER. Those trees are highly competitive (particularly in water consumption) so they displace native species and later they f***ing catch on fire any time there's some dry period, causing large forest fires. These forests aren't like those in Australia or California, they are NOT supposed to burn. And worst of all, native trees are the ones that end up suffering the most - they burn during those eucalyptus-powered fires, but unlike the eucalyptus they haven't evolved to recover their population afterwards. I cringed so hard when I heard that suggestion because I know how s***ty it is.
@@philipgeorge3472 correct , and they also use up moisture while rain forest trees increase moisture making them the worst choice of tree. Better to try to copy a rain forest based permaculture
Can vacuum capillary action make the desal more efficient? Increase the volume of the container to decrease the boiling point of the water
You need several different types of trees. If you use just one, if a virus for the tree comes around, it could wipe out massive spans of the new forests, among many other issues of going with just one type of tree.
This is an absolutely great idea if only the math works out, but unfortunately it doesn't. Here is why. Most of the calculation is accurate, up until the electricity cost. As was mentioned, irrigation of the Sahara desert using desalination requires 19600 terawatt hours a year, that is roughly the amout of electricity generated in the entire world. Are you seriously trying to convince us it only takes 1.96 Billion USD to generate the whole world's electricity! As a matter of fact, this is the part where you get it wrong, assuming electrity generation cost of 0.1USD per kilowatthour (and I'm guessing this is the figure you are using), it takes a humongous 1.96 Trillion (i.e. 1960 Billion) USD to just generate the amout of electricity required, 1000 times more than your calculation, let alone the money needed to build the required infrastructure. I'm not saying the proposed idea is without merit, but you have seriously downplayed the expense, like 1000 times downplayed. As a engineer myself, I find this miscalculation intolerable, assuming it's a miscalculation, not a number trick, which politicians like to use, not engineers. P.S. 2 million views, why I am the only one to notice this miscalculation, I guess people should look closer at the math. Please upvote my comment so that people can realise this is too good to be true.
hahaha People are clearly more eager to discuss "the ecological diversity" than math, you kill-joy!
You are right. The value of energy generated would be 2 trillion per year, not 2 billion. According to the video: 19,600 TWh (7:35), that is 19,600 billion KWh He mentioned the price of solar being 10 cents per KWh. So yes the cost of the energy would be 1960 billion dollars, or almost two trillion, per year. The video mentions 1.96 billion dollars, so 1000 times less.
As an electrical engineer, I found it hilarious. He didn't count many other factors which would increase the energy consumption. Like he only considered pumping up the water to the required height, not the horizontal distance. and through ups and downs of sand dunes. Ideally, you would need to create gigantic lakes at heights greater than the average height.
Detractor chatter. Irrelevant. Use your math to fix your perceived error with clean water and energy ideas if you want respect.
Why does nobody seem to notice? Techno-optimism is a very powerful way to be in denial. Ignorant denial; interpretive denial; and/or implicative denial - usually some mix of all three. Most folks have absolutely no way to check the bad calculations provide by tech-optimists - they can barely balance a checkbook, if that.
Industrial Hemp is an excellent candidate for this project. It can be grown quickly and has the fastest co'2 to biomass conversion ratio found in nature. Even more then agroforestry.
A very good idea.
Bamboo would probably be better. And even better than bamboo would be vats full of algae. You don't even need extra land for the algae. Just build the vats off the coast of somewhere, then harvest the algae and bury it underground. A century later, you'll have kilotons of peat for you to mine and burn. The point of the forests of trees is to make resources that can be used and sold upon harvest, and requires a lower investment of maintenance. Industrial hemp requires continuous fertilization, which is costly to maintain. Trees deplete the soil much more slowly and require a lower investment of water. Reasonably fertile desert topsoil works well enough for trees, but would take only a decade or two of industrial farming to deplete. Algae has a similar problem, causing the water it grows in to become toxic rather quickly, killing off fish downstream of the current.
or just make fish farms
@@commode7x Sorry boss, but you might want to do some reading before you make the sort of statements you did here. I'd recommend "The Emperor Wears no Clothes" by Jack Herer. Hemp is superior to bamboo or trees in pretty much every meaningful aspect. It's a weed. As such it requires no fertilizer and minimal irrigation. It can be grown in soil so poor that no other agricultural crop will grow there. Hemp is a nitrate fixer, so it is nourishing the soil as it grows. It binds carbon at around 7 tons per acre and can do that twice a year across most of the world and all year long from the subtropics to the equator. No other type of biomass can make those claims. Certainly none that are as beneficial as hemp.
I think we should grow marijuana because it would suck up co2 and everyone can get high.
Just talk to Tom Nook after completing some tasks in the game, it could take a while.
If you research the topic, it's theorized that rising CO2 is helping green the southern wedge of the Sahara called the Sahal. This area has been receiving increased rainfall, causing it to green own its own. Of a few theories, one is that as the North Atlantic grows warmer, it causes a change in wind patterns that increases rainfall in the Sahal. The increase in CO2 also helps plants survive in drier climates. Another contributing theory is that as the Sahara desert area heats, it also causes changes in wind patterns that bring more precipitation into the Sahal. As the Sahal greens, it also changes wind patterns that bring in yet more precipitation. Even if we don't do much to reduce CO2 and methane emissions (which are worse), the rate of technology will produce alternatives to energy and meat (the main driver of methane emissions) within the next 60 years. My guess is that at some point in the few-hundred-years future, people will release copious methane or CO2 if the earth grows too cool. I'd rather a very warm than a snowball earth.
Better to store it in Marine grass. Marine grasses capture and retain a much higher CO2 per volume than wood!
But trees can keep growing taller and absorbing CO2 for centuries, while marine grasses (presumably) stop growing after a while. And I assume trees also have more economical value for humans, which could serve as an additional incentive for the project. Also, this project would make use of otherwise useless surface area, whereas marine grasses require water, which tends to be inhabited by photosynthetic organisms.
Yes, but trees cool the ground below much, much, MUCH more effectively and absorb much more solar radiation.
@@VVayVVard - if the grasses could be made to sink to the bottom in a deoxygenated environment, that would effectively sequester the carbon (and whatever other elements) they contain.
@@VVayVVard why not both?
@@TheModrnPhilosophr You mean turning bodies of water into more efficient carbon sinks? That could certainly work, although there would be less economic incentive (or at least so it would seem) so I assume it might receive less priority, unless it was very cost-efficient (maybe with the development of a super-efficient low-maintenance carbon-sequestering species).
I get home from school and immediately a new Real Engineering video! Yessss Edit: Thanks for the favourite!!
kikivoorburg wow 😮 it’s only 9:30 am
THE GRUMPY DRAGON not for me here in The Netherlands!
kikivoorburg Ohio, United States
@@thegrumpydragon7601 It's like 6:40am for me
CrazyWeeMonkey California
It would be cheaper to make a 1000 to 2000 kilometers salt lake . The precipitation from a lake that size would generate enough rainwater to cover large parts of the the desert. You'll also remove some amount of salt that's been mined from the ground and deposited back in the oceans. You could make more economy this way as well. Though fishing and/or evaporation ponds. Depending how deep the lake is, could slow the sea from rising. Just some food for thought.
I was worried when I clicked on this that Real Engineering would be in favour of the idea, and was very relieved when he went into the massive downsides and consequences. This is yet another demonstration that climate change is a complex problem that will not be fixed by simple solutions.
Eucalyptus?! They burn like fireworks and not much grows under them!
Also to allow the seeds of the ecalptus to form the trees you need the fire otherwise the buds don't open, that's why in Australia farmers often do controlled burns
Sakuhin Another reason not to have eucalyptus
A fantastic video, than you for putting together such an exhaustive explanation! A few thought I had while listening: 1. Evaporation will increase though forestation, further reducing the amount of water needed 2. Eucalyptus is probably a bad choice, as it is thought to be amounts the cause of many spontaneous forest fires in Portugal, where it was imported. The amount of sap they release is very easily ignited when dry . 3. The best option would of course be to bring a full forest habitat. Examples of that are available in places like Brazil, where people have brought back the jungle in zones that were rendered completely bare and arid by cattles.
I agree. A gigantic forest consisting of a single (and non-native) species is a potential disaster waiting to happen (fires in the case of eucalyptus, but also diseases, pests etc.). He also failed to mention that there already is a project like this, albeit on a much smaller scale: The Great Green Wall project in the Sahel zone. They're having some success with reforestation, and they're using native species. If anything, this should be supported and scaled up.
@@Gear3k Also, Germany has had a lot of problems with non-native forests. They are very vulnerable to illnesses as anything that harms one can ruin the whole forest. Maybe re-foresting the land that the sahara grew into should be the priority here, not the Sahara in rhe centre.
Eucalypts are designed to catch fire. The seeds require heat to germinate and fire also clears the canopy to allowing seedlings to get light.
We also have a lot of problems with "renewable energies", because for some unfowthomable reason, nuclear is not considered to be among them. Electric grid does not support it, storing facilities do not exist, a concept for the entire thing has not been created. Bottom line, just because something is not viable, this will not stop the current administration, be it about electricity or non local Flora/Fauna. I would not trust these people with conceiving, planning or executing such a grand project such as this, nor would I trust any other government to do it better. The best we can do in this regard is to first find out, then counteract why the desert exists in the first place, then let nature take its course and reclaim the Sahara. A planned eco system of any kind will very likely fall flat on its face thanks in no small part to executive meddling.
+bellastoria Guy in video needs to lay down the pipe then realize it would be cheaper and wiser to simply FARM THE FUCKING OCEAN. Mitigating the need for desalinization, zero risk of forest fire, reduction of ocean acidification, and repopulation of coral reefs. Depending on which study you believe oceanic farming is 2 - 20 times more effective in carbon sequester vs forests. I'd speculate the initial oceanic farming will be towards the lower mid spectrum gradually rising as fish stocks replenish providing more fertilizer. To compliment the farming oceanic wind turbines providing power (with no intent to deliver electricity to mainland) for electrolysis to produce synthetic coral reefs along with hydrogen that can either be pumped via pipeline or processed on site into CNG via the sabatier process utilizing CO2 + hydrogen. Doubling the wind speed increases potential power times eight so an off-shore 2MW wind turbine relatively close to land experiencing 13mph consistent winds would now produce 16MW of power in 26mph. Which those 26 mph winds can be found in abundance yearly in the middle between UK and Canada of the Northern Atlantic.
Taking a walk it recently came to me that the first species entering Land was no animal and no plant, but an archaic type of Fungus. So when it comes to soil building on earth as well as maybe bringing life to other solar trabants funghi would be pioneers as they historically were
Eucalyptus doesn’t allow any undergrowth to survive and is much more flammable than other trees.witness the terrible fires in both Australia and in Portugal, where devastating fires have been blamed on rampant growth of this tree.
I went in thinking : "Law of unintended consequences!" But you covered it very well!
At the middle of the video I was all like "this is a *great* idea!" and by the end I was like "this is a *terrible* idea."
Not many people talk about using new nuclear energy technologies to replace fossil fuel. Why?
Because they're dangerous maybe, just maybe.
@@Kyle-ye4nj maybe just maybe they are the safest form of energy per kilowatt hour. Including solar and wind. Look up the facts before you spout nonsense.
Maybe it’s because a vocal subset of the population has been brainwashed. That subset had been effective in driving up the cost of nuclear power through lawsuits and other obstructionist tactics.
Even though nuclear accidents are rare, when they happen the effects are more devastating than say the collapse of a dam or a wind turbine. Ultimately, nuclear is the more practical solution to our energy issues.
@@michaelkipchumba3270 more devastating than the collapse of a dam? Where entire towns are destroyed? I mean look at the death tolls due to nuclear power. Fukushima, where one person died from exposure. Three mile island where no one died. Name any where more than 20 people died from exposure. Even Chernobyl, the world health organization vastly over estimated the deaths because they took every instance of cancer in the surrounding area and blamed it on the accident and its STILL by far the safest form of energy. And we are using outdated technology. We can make them safer cheaper and more efficient by 10 fold. If the NRC would let the industry innovate.
3:21 man I sure hope a fire or something doesn't start in our new forest. We need to used more heat resistant variety I think.
Portugal can attest.
Very interesting. Afforestation would also create more land for sustainable farming,produce building materials,water capture,help to reduce weather extremes and storms amongst other things and generate affordable housing.
There are new studies showing that when there is a large amount of Sahara dust in the atmosphere there is a reduction in Atlantic temperatures. This in turn deduces the likelihood of a major hurricane. Without that dust and a higher ocean temperature we would likely see more powerful storms then ever before. It is an interesting idea though, although I think it would be better if we "put things back" so leave the places that we have to teardown to live, like the Amazon forest, Florida swamps, and move places we can live in harmony. Although thats not easily done.
It's both interesting and scary how sometimes altering the environment/weather patterns can start conflicts, dams being the most prominent examples at the moment. The sahara also has mienrals that get blown into the Amazon rainforest. Some scientists think that the Amazon wont survive without those minerals.
He mentions this near the end of the video at 10:40
I wonder how your figures would change if instead we used something like a mangrove tree that can deal with salt water instead of using desalination.
That's definitely something to consider. I think the idea of salt water plants is a better approach. I came up with a crazy idea of a bio-engineered plant. It would be a vine that could be planted just off the northern coast of Australia. Its roots would be in the ocean but most of the plant would be on land. It would be bio-engineered to be inedible and to not stop growing. What you would have is a plant that gets its water from the ocean and its sunlight from the hot Australian desert. The question is how long it could grow? Would it be possible for the vine to grow several miles long? Again, it's probably just a crazy idea.
@@unadin4583 Interesting idea, but that might become an invasive species quite easily.
@@NatureShy Actually, it is possible to create plants that do not procreate (e.g. seedless grapes). I think the main problem with my idea is just the inherent limitations of how long a vine can be, i.e. is it possible for a vine to transport water from its roots in the sea to its leaves many miles inland? I suppose they could build some canals, but then MA Wizard's idea of using mangrove trees would be the more realistic approach. Still, bio-engineering might provide at least part of the answer.
Using mangrove trees for what? filtering the salt water instead of desalination plants or in place of the eucalyptus trees?
@@madman3891 This video is about increasing plant life so that it will convert more carbon dioxide into oxygen. Desalinization plants may be an effective tool in providing people with drinking water. However, this does not mean that they can make a significant contribution to the world's plant life. Much botanical study in the past hundred years has been directed towards increasing food production. This video is about oxygen production, so it's a little different. In terms of oxygen production, I can see how salt water plants could do more than fresh water plants.
As another guy noted - this: Sadly, only to cause erosion [ Eucalyptus trees do ], since the natural flora has been destroyed and cannot be re-established because the Eucalyptus trees have turned the ground acidic. Eucalyptus can be a real problem when taken out of it's natural environment and planted elsewhere. Sure the tree comes from Australia and thus you can use it in the Australian Outback if you want, just be careful when taking it elsewhere. Eucalyptus can have terrible side effects for the ground it stands on... nothing else will grow in it's place due to high acid levels it leaves in the ground. [from acidic leaves dropping continually apparently]
What about the albedo of solar power plants? They are dark blue to absorb as much light as possible so low albedo, but on the other hand coming from video about solar power in the Sahara there might be only a smaller surface needed.
China is already doing this with the Gobi Desert. From what I heard they're getting pretty good results out of it.
Whatever else can be said about command economies (and there's a lot that can be said about command economies, most of it bad), when directed toward a tangible and measurable goal, there are advantages it has over a market economy.
it's chinese news, so don't expect it to be real.
But their goal is not to replace the Gobi desert, it's only to keep it from expanding (and give the people of the area something to do)
no actually check it out on yt, they turn give sand a soil like property by adding a plant paste to it and then put plants down, they have videos of before and after, its really impressive.
China are pumping underground water supplies dry! Mongolian herders are no longer able to access water for their stock in Mongolia, on land they have used in that way for thousands of years! That's the advantage of a government system where you're not required to conduct environmental impact studies! The Gobi desert does NOT currently meet the water requirements to be catagorised as a desert, due to all the additional water being brought above ground! But once that runs out, it will all come to a halt & the situation will be MUCH worse than it was before they started!
There is a search engine called ecosia which uses 80% of its income to plants trees and promote important reforestation projects. You guys should look it up and think about using it instead of google
*laughs in already uses ecosia*
Yeah, they just sell your data to fund the project...
@@rhyscooper3693 I am fairly certain they use advertisements. U can read it all up, if you want.
I haven't read all the comments but when I see this type of idea I'm reminded of other documentaries stating that the particulate matter that is uplifted from the Sahara helps to nourish the Amazon and South American forests. These ideas always seem to admit the difficulty in the project but not the potential negative impact it could have elsewhere. If the atmospheric transfer of this material is halted as a result of terraforming the Sahara it could just remove one of our best carbon capture systems already in place before its established. As others have highlighted you will need diversity to make a ecosystem able to tolerate future environment problems. Don't go putting all your eggs in one basket. It's possible to do but will need a world solution to bring it to fruition in a meaningful timescale.
it's peak hubris thinking we can succesfully manipulate a complicated non-linear system like the climate, glad you adressed it
WHY DONT WE JUST TAKE THE SAHARA, AND PUSH IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!
Or light it on fire so we get an insane big glassplate to look inside the earth
BRILLIANT
yeh push it into the atlantic to exapnd the african continent.
Why don't we just make a giant parking out of it?
Because only the Chinese have the technology!
Terraforming Sahara should be trivial compared to terraforming Mars.
But terraforming the Sahara can help us last longer to get to that stage.
What about extreme low temp artificial glaciers. One where the water is pumped in from the ocean, supercooled as a liquid, spontaneously crystallized upon deployment, and melt off from the sun is directed further inland to run water turbines and provide streams and rivers for local populations. This could solve some of the issues outlined in this video. Thoughts?
As a side note...I imagine there's more value in cooling the poles than cooling the deserts. The snow helps to reflect more sunlight. I also think if you could pump the heat into the upper atmosphere it would help cool it with the emptiness of space. This is why I think a solar tower might be a really good idea as it decreases the temperatures within it's shadow as well as directly pumps the heat higher into the atmosphere
even if it has little effect on global temperature, turning deserts into usable land is beyond cool
redtails the already did that in China
We could also terraform Spain to produce olive oil :-) The olive trees are like a forest that is producing olive oil :-)
España es el primer productor mundial de aceite de oliva, no necesitamos más. Spain is the first world producer of olive oil, we don´t need more. ;)
Won't be enough to save them tho..
Spain and Portugal produce more than enough olive oil already. In fact, I don't think any Mediterranean country is lacking in olive trees.
It will be dumb to stop global warming. The sun has broken all records by being blank for hundreds of days this year. There's a dark hole developing on the surface of the sun due to the deciding output. We are heading into a 75 year ice age. But even if it doesn't come, people need to study the weather from the last time the ice caps were gone. There were no deserts on Earth. Everything was green. This added ecosystems absorbed the extra water from the ice caps. Temperature was in the 70s year round over much for the surface of the earth. If anything the ice caps damaged earth.
@@Bryan-Hensley if the ice caps are gone the coast of every country on earth will become underwater, causing a global crisis, due to the damages that woukd cause
That was an amazing and informative video and I had fun watching it especially the graphic designs and graphs making it easier to sink in but not all African countries aren't poor.
Super great video ! great work. Thanks
Many moons ago I saw a show on Landline which is a series on Australia's ABC, a women working for the CSIRO was able to demonstrate the capture of carbon on broad acre farms at rates of 20 tonnes per hectare simply by making adjustments to the then current farming technique, she rallied a few dozen farmers to take her seriously and to help run a demonstration for the Australian Govt. the pilot study was conducted in the most arid areas of Australia. The crop yield was down slightly (20%) but the resultant 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare in the soil in its first year saw a huge jump in soil fertility, fauna, soil biome and a big jump in water retention, they where paid $20 for every tonne they captured so on a 1000 hectare farm that amounted to $400,000 not a bad little earner while making the soil richer and tying up the carbon in the soil for decades if not centuries, the pilot ran for only 1 year but I believe the farmers where very impressed with the results and saw real value in it for themselves, of course it needed a carbon tax to work which we had until the right wing fuckwit Abbott got rid of it, but the scientist (I completely for get her name) estimated that if all Australian farmers adopted this approach then Australia could capture the entire worlds carbon output with plenty left to spare!!! To this day I SMH angrily at the utter stupidity of the LNP, the right wing vandals smirking at the destruction they cause.
You call a 20% decrease slight?
@@TheToric it's significant yes, however in the arid regions the trial took place the harvest would be lucky to reach 3 tonnes per hectare, I think that's quite a generous reading, so 20% is say 600kg, or about $70 for the farmer in lost production per hectare, so on a 1000 hectare property $70,000, so it's a loss but made up in an extra income of $400,000 in carbon sequestering add in the longer term benefits of substantially richer soils, for greater water retention in the soil, the productivity of the soil will increase to more than compensate and even increase to pre sequestering levels, ans as this was the first year 20 tonnes of carbon in the soil would be at the lower end, 30 to 40 tonnes per hectare is quite feasible over a long term management system
luger188 if it produced $400,000 in extra revenue, why is a tax needed to make it work? Couldn’t a farmer just get a loan instead of taxing people if they wanted to do this? Maybe it doesn’t turn a profit? That would make the whole thing pretty unsustainable. And if it does turn a profit, why the need for a tax? Also, 20% lower yield is a huge loss.
@@thebiggestpanda1 your questions are stupid sorry, he doesnt sell the carbon as a harvestable product, the carbon is sequestered in the soil, you know underground? So a person comes to his property and takes a measurement of the carbon in the soil in many different places and that is extrapolated across his whole property, the govt. Then pays him for his total amount sequestered or locked up in the soil. This process requires a carbon tax and a carbon trading scheme, please dont ask me anymore questions on this if your too intellectually lazy to think . FFS this is why we're in this fucking mess...too many dumb cunts
Eucalyptus Grandis' common name is 'Flooded Gum' because it needs a LOT of water. Wondering why this was the preferred species?
Because they admit a highly flammable gas when matured and the leaves and seedpods don't break down to create a nice kindling bed in a hot climate :)
Because he's an idiot. He wants to use a high-carbon energy source, then just pick up the carbon. For 1 billionth the cost, you could put carbon scrubbers on power plants. And I'm find with that, as they seem to be causing breathing problems for people in Beijing. Unfortunately, this idea would help human beings, so the Greens and their Global Warming cultists will never support it.
I was unsure, by the end, whether we could or should green the deserts.
You quickly mentioned cloud formation, which might be very underestimated. The transition into foresting sahara might be negative from a CO2 point of view, but once the forest is there, the weather and climate in the area might have changed also to introduce both clouds and rain.
XD "these cute little shits" sounds about right
I’m glad I heard it right.
Use more nuclear power. Particularly thorium.
@ZonTheDon Its not, Thorium is found in large quantities in countries like India where Uranium is not present. This can be useful.
To power cars?
@@darinherrick9224 It can be used, there was a time when companies tried to. Still I would bet on hydrogen for the future of vehicles.
@@darinherrick9224 you can use nuclear plants to charge electric cars
nuclear costs offset the benefits - the procedures, precautions, training staff..
You need to look into the Danakil and Qattara Depressions. Both are at least 400 feet below sea level. The Danakil is near the sea and sea water could provide hydro power. The water could be allowed to evaporate in the salt pans to form clouds and rain. Native vegetation would increase with little intervention, of course desalinization and tighter control of the water produced would also be possible. The Qattara depression though further from the sea covers some 19,000 sq km. Evaporation from even a portion of this area would increase the ability of the surrounding desert to support forests. It would be a big engineering project but not an impossible one.